Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

14 May 2018 05:08

aphronesis wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:You don’t push my buttons and I’m not upset. But given the extreme paranoia you’re afflicted with lately, I can see how you’d be off on gauging affect. If your way through these persecution issues is to play the stupidest guy in the room, by all means.

I was wrong though: you still equate totalitarianism with socialism.

Excellence and innovation? Maybe you can work on that auto death issue. I know it’s got you exercised.

You know economics and can poke holes in Dem MSm points, but don’t offer much more. I’d be bored too.


I just don’t have the patience I used to have. I’m not going to change anyone’s mind about anything. There’s no point in even discussing socialism with a theorist. You know what you know and what I know is socialism the way it’s done in Northern European countries won’t fly here for lots of reasons - not the least of which is the undoing of a culture that tells their kids they can be anything they want to be.

I’m stupid. Fine. You incessantly respond to a stupid poster. Sounds like we are both stupid. I’ll continue to post as I like and you’ll just have to deal with it.


I’ve never said you’re stupid, but acting so. I already (years ago and now) pointed at the limits of NorEur socialism and yet you’re stuck there. Oh, and the constitution.

So innivation and excellence for busisnessmen, none for politics?


Never heard of excellence in politics. It’s a blood sport where elected ninnies are corrupted the second the plane touches down at Dulles. And it’s not only corporate purchasing influence. Look at what McConnell has been doing... Right now we have Newsome supporting Repub Cox because he doesn’t want to face another Dem (Villarigosa) in November for Gov of California. No excellence there.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

14 May 2018 08:27

Capitalism is bringing the human race close to self-extinction. Like it or not, some sort of collectivism will be needed if we are to survive. Rabid individualism, and "Excellence and innovation" purely for personal profit are taking us nowhere. Myths, such as the American dream, must be dispelled.

Will it happen? Unlikely, because those who have taken us to this point are those with the vested financial interests in the status quo, and the resources to promote the message by media or by war.

Will these people, who by definition have access to the best education and social capital, persist with the myth that everybody can achieve anything provided that they work hard enough? Why of course, because it not only ascribes the failure of the lower classes to their own indolence but also absolves the elite from any responsibility for the impediments to social progress. The myth of meritocracy in the capitalist system.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: U.S. Politics

14 May 2018 11:33

Today is Monday and more from the trump clown car..great article but 'some' won't read it. Too bad.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/sean-hannity-donald-trump-late-night-calls.html


No fake news there, at Faux...really?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fox-news-white-house-latest-john-bolton-larry-kudlow-west-wing-heather-nauert-mercedes-a8273166.html
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,010
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re:

14 May 2018 14:27

Unchained wrote:Aphro that was a very good article.. my own life is\was effected by the use of credit. Both in California and New York through a combination of cash, credit and current employment found myself able to buy real estate that appreciated at a rate that no other investment could have.
. I was basically in the right place at the right time. No intense skills or training of which people would associate a real estate mogul having..
I made money from doing nothing more than sleeping in the house and parking my car in the driveway..
I also did not completely get the Walmart 27 hour reference..? I am guessing that through software, Walmart management can monitor employee hours to ensure that full time status is never achieved.. I have seen some big customers that use Kronos or similar to meet that type of goal.
In some big corporate restaurant chains I have worked for, kitchen\knife skills have been nearly eliminated.. so many items are pre packed and pre cut it is nothing short of amazing.
I did work in some airport restaurants many years ago and recall chefs in training, not so much for basic skills, instead for the specific techniques and recipes.. myself and others used to really enjoy eating the training food!! my most recent experience is restaurants hiring lots of right-out-of-school kitchen staff.. they learn how to heat and present the food as per corporate photos.. Applebee's and Outback are a couple that I think maybe only have one or two people with real kitchen skills.. everyone else is at state minimum wage.. I patronize Starbucks for coffee a few times per week and seeing there staff of people microwaving food makes me cringe..4-5 dollar, old sandwiches made flexible by the use of a microwave.. nobody w any cooking skills..
I have seen some decent skills in school cafeteria staff.. I have eaten some decent, wholesome meals prepared by school cooks..we are taking the skill part of lots of jobs and centralizing it..
PS.. if nobody has seen Kronos used by trained professional staff it will blow you away




Sounds like excellence and innovation to me. More seriously: the deskilling and reskilling of the labor population is caught nowhere as an external of capital transformation and a “right” that’s not comprehensively legislated because no one is really honest about it. Folded into that is the corporate degradation of the focus d chain and conceptions of what it is. Per Mac’s points above.

But that’s a bit abstract and theorizing is only valid if done for profit and government subsidy.

Otherwise your best bet is some kind of cognitive dissonance of cynicism and emptied out 18th century deist notions.

That god real merikans are protecting me from terrorism. I hope one will dive on the next pipe bomb in my subway station. But since terrorist attacks are rare, maybe these real Americans could use their downtime and persuade other real Americans to forego the freedom to look at their phone while driving (oof, sacrifice is so

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/05/full-employment-job-guarantee-bernie-bruenig
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,570
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

14 May 2018 15:43

I sincerely hope that the rest of the membership of the NRA isn't this f**king moronic: “This is civil terrorism,” he told The Washington Times, reportedly in reference to activists splashing fake blood on the home of an N.R.A. official. “This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America.” “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things — even there you didn’t have this kind of thing,” he said.

Under Obama, nobody lost their guns, there are no uniform state laws regarding firearms (which is the reason that the guns in Chicago can be traced to states with more lax gun laws), and the NRA continues to suggest high school kids are oppressing their membership....an armored clown car...

https://www.themaven.net/theintellectualist/news/oliver-north-gun-owners-are-as-oppressed-as-blacks-were-under-jim-crow-GTCdQq_EvUyKSK5XlwUpLA/?full=1
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,937
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

14 May 2018 16:36

In February, US Citizenship and Immigration Services deleted language from its mission statement that described the country as a “nation of immigrants.” It was yet another sign that a belief pervasive in the Trump White House—that arrivals from Latin America, Asia and Africa posed a threat to an American identity truly rooted in European culture—was spreading to other institutions of government. Last year, Trump invoked Blut-und-Boden nationalism before an audience in Warsaw. “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” Trump said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

European countries appear to have taken up Trump’s challenge with vigor. In Poland, the ruling Law and Justice Party has potentially made it a criminal offense to assert that ordinary Poles murdered their Jewish neighbors during the Holocaust. In Italy, the right-wing Northern League has dropped northern from its name, ditching its denigration of Southern Italians for an anti-immigrant demagoguery pitched to xenophobes up and down the peninsula. In Germany, where the far-right Alternative For Germany is now the largest opposition party, one leading public intellectual criticized Merkel’s refugee policy, on the grounds that “no society has the moral obligation to self-destruct.” In France, where the specter of the National Front still looms, another intellectual warns that “peoples, civilizations, religions—and especially when these religions are themselves civilizations, types of society, almost States—cannot and cannot even want to . . . blend into other peoples, other civilizations.”

All of these developments have spooked the liberal establishment, who grieve the loss of familiar moorings, and who have no clear way to steer the ship back to safe cold war harbors. How can one find a new way back to the securities of the old world? Yascha Mounk, a lecturer at Harvard who has emerged as a kind of expert on the vogueish “crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of populism” (he has also written for this magazine), has hit upon what he believes is a novel idea for achieving “a kind of society for which there is no clear precedent”—that is, a liberal democracy in a multiethnic country that was for a long time either monoethnic or subject to a racial hierarchy. In his new book, The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It, the executive director at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change’s “Renewing the Centre team” argues that a revitalized liberalism is the answer.

In Mounk’s account, “the views of the people are tending illiberal and the preferences of the elites are turning undemocratic,” and that as a result “liberalism and democracy are starting to clash,” leading to “the rise of illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy.” According to Mounk, the component parts of liberal democracy enjoyed a long century of symbiosis, but today they are rapidly devolving into mutual antagonism.

To save the system from cannibalistic self-destruction requires understanding the arc of its rise and fall. Unexpectedly for an avid defender of liberal democracy, Mounk offers a cynical account of the regime’s origins. For Mounk, liberal democracy is a compromise between elites and the masses. He uses a vignette of Prussian peasants getting duped into a fake exercise of popular sovereignty to show that the terms have always been starkly unequal: the many get the illusion of self-rule while the few “continued to get their way on the most important issues.” The architects of the first liberal republics—the US among them—constitutionally codified the limited nature of democracy.

Over the course of the nineteenth century, however, the franchise expanded to include the propertyless masses; over the course of the twentieth, more and more of the excluded were given the rights of citizenship. Among the industrialized powers, the expansion of democracy required “a contingent set of technological, economic, and cultural preconditions”: the domination of a limited number of mass media outlets; a rising standard of living (and, importantly, inter-generational upward mobility); and either ethnic homogeneity (in Europe) or racial hierarchy (in the US). Today these are threatened by social media, economic precarity, and increasing migration and diversity.

Mounk’s sociological realism should not be confused with critique. His treatise is inspired neither by anti-elite animus nor the radical promise of democracy. It is instead a view from above, or perhaps something like a system-eye view of itself, in which stability is an unquestioned good. Attempting to bring the reader alongside him, Mounk writes often of an unspecified “we” and “us,” evoking a collective liberal mind on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The People vs. Democracy is a map for elites who no longer recognize the world they created, and whose subjects are no longer duped by the myth of popular sovereignty. This is where Mounk enters, stage center-left, posing as a guide out of the present crisis.

When did liberalism go astray? Mounk’s assessment of the failings of Hillary Clinton and her class is that “politicians have found it increasingly difficult to sell the message that things are complicated.” Thus does the weakening grip of liberalism on the minds of the masses open the way for the demon of populism. According to Mounk, “populists are unwilling to admit that the real world might be complicated—that solutions might prove elusive even for people with good intentions.” As a result, “they need somebody to blame. And blame they do.” Liberals, by contrast, are, despite their failings, well-intentioned and gifted with the powers to diagnose problems and devise policy solutions. The tragedy is that they struggle to convey this truth clearly to the people, who have grown restless, disenchanted by claims to expertise, and enchanted by Manichean simplifications. What is to be done?

In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Mounk summed up the case made at length in his book: that to fight the far-right, liberals should reclaim a more inclusive nationalism. Admirably swallowing his personal distaste, Mounk offers his solution as a concession: we are helpless before nationalism, and simply have to deal with it. Would-be critics must either embrace it or make one of two mistakes: “celebrate more narrow forms of collective identity, such as race or religion,” or “forgo the need for any form of collective identity.” With so many falsehoods setting fire to straw men, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Who are these people that argue for eschewing all collective identity? Even in its blandest form—“Stronger Together”—some invocation of the people seems to be an imperative in mass politics. And even though race and religion can indeed be pernicious grounds for group cohesion, what does he mean by arguing that they are more “narrow” than nationalism? An estimated 1.2 billion Catholics are alive today, compared to roughly 330 million Americans. In empirical terms, Mounk’s point is nonsensical.

Despite the appeal to pragmatism, Mounk’s political vision is utopian, his ideal polity a kind of liberal sublime. In a distant place far outside of history, virtuous trustees of public reason skillfully mobilize the best of nationalism while fending off its “dangerous excesses.” Entranced, Mounk sees in nationalism a muscular tool for legitimizing the political-economic order: “Nationalism is like a half-wild beast. As long as it remains under our control, it can be of tremendous use.” Who is the “beast,” and who is the “us” into which Mounk places the reader?

Mounk’s colorblind, Whiggish, “inclusive” nationalism is nothing new. As Aziz Rana has argued in these pages, it long served as an entirely conventional and cold war liberal form of identity politics. And it has always played handmaiden to the state’s policing functions, whether to discipline rebellious movements at home, or obliterate those deemed existential threats abroad. It’s telling that the two heroes of Mounk’s beloved “inclusive nationalism”—Obama and Macron—are exemplars on both counts. He cites Macron’s embrace of diversity in his campaign, but characteristically fails to note that once in office Macron decided to placate the far-right by cracking down on asylum seekers. This isn’t the sort of thing that concerns Mounk. As he sums up in his vacuous, marketing-speak appraisal of Macron: “Rhetoric matters.” The repetition-compulsion with which Mounk and company “discover” old ideas suggests that they suffer from a diurnal amnesia. They wake up with “new” proposals to persuade people that the liberal order is just, realize by bedtime that they won’t be listened to, and by morning come up with the same proposals again.

Which is also to say that this isn’t the first time that intellectuals have worried over the fate of national identity in a globalizing world. In the 1990s, neoconservatives exuded melancholy following the collapse of the Soviet Union: the country’s mission, forged in martial certitude, had evaporated, and a flat world, rampant consumerism and the end of history failed to take its place. As Corey Robin writes in The Reactionary Mind, people across the political spectrum—from liberals to the right —were thrilled by September 11th’s nationalist frisson: “Writers repeatedly welcomed the galvanizing moral electricity through the body politic. A pulsing energy of public resolve and civic commitment, which would restore trust in government . . . and bring about a culture of patriotism and connection. . . . With its shocking spectacle of fear and death, 9/11 offered a dead or dying culture the chance to live again.” But the energy of neoconservative idealism crumbled under the grind of permanent, asymmetrical and unconventional conflict, which was then seized upon by Trump, who has governed with a terrifying agenda to intensify state violence—whether at the border or abroad—with a naked appeal to national self-interest.

Mounk, however, seems to think that he can resuscitate liberal nationalism through elite calls for the mass, emotional labor of nation-loving. This isn’t desirable or plausible. Nationalism has never come out of sheer, voluntary enthusiasm. Remembering for a moment his realist impulses, Mounk argues that “citizens have built up loyalty to their political system because it kept the peace and swelled their pocketbooks, not because they hold a deep commitment to its most fundamental principles.” But he then goes on to insist that liberal elites can build a new national identity by way of forceful rhetoric, somehow transcending a class conflict in which they are belligerents. Mounk re-animates a familiar brand of liberal elitism masquerading as solidarity: “At a time when many minority groups are under attack, it is, of course, crucial to defend them against discrimination.” Not only are affluent white people the unmarked audience for this exhortation, in paternalistic fashion he assumes that beneficent elites, rather than the oppressed themselves, are the protagonists in the struggle to defend the oppressed.

Mounk pairs his woke noblesse oblige with a distorted picture of the present, in which “African Americans are better represented in business and government than ever in American history,” according to his op-ed. Better still: “the day on which neither race nor creed would undermine somebody’s claim to be a true American seemed considerably closer than it once had. Then came Donald Trump.” This may be technically correct, given the historical baselines of chattel slavery and Jim Crow. But Mounk has nothing to say about racialized mass incarceration (by 2015 there were more black men under some form of correctional control than enslaved in 1850), nor the decimation of black wealth in the wake of the financial crisis. Untroubled by these issues, Mounk spends pages analyzing overhyped controversies over campus speech and cultural appropriation, often in a manner so flat-footed that it is breathtaking: “Since dreadlocks were depicted as far back as Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, for example, a case could be made that African Americans are themselves engaging in a form of cultural appropriation when they are sporting this hairstyle.”

We will refrain from an exhaustive catalog of the book’s inaccuracies, but Mounk tellingly gets many of his few concrete references to American history wrong. He writes that “the end of segregation was brought about not by the will of the American people but rather by an institution that had the constitutional power to override it.” Mounk is apparently referring to cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled de jure school segregation unconstitutional. This version of history not only elides the role played by popular mobilization in shaping court decisions, but it also ignores legislative accomplishments like the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which unlike the Brown decision led to substantive and widespread school desegregation measures—and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, propelled forth by black activists enduring police violence in the South, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, passed in the wake of urban uprising and protest against ghettoization. Mounk’s endeavor to cast the unelected judiciary as an unrivaled civil rights hero requires him ignoring this history and much more—including the fact that the Supreme Court has in recent years gutted both the Voting Rights Act and school desegregation initiatives.

Mounk’s portrait of American immigration history offers similar platitudes with the same confidence. He writes that the United States “had thought of itself as a country of immigration since its founding” —a cliche that scholarship has debunked. For much of early American history, Americans conceived itself as a nation of settlers. It was only in the late 19th century, amidst the closing of the frontier, the rise of industrial capitalism and the influx of people from Italy and Russia, and from East Asia, that newcomers began to be viewed largely as immigrants (often negatively). Only in the mid-20th century did many whites began to reimagine the country as a “nation of immigrants” amidst the black civil rights struggle, the rising fortunes of so-called white ethnics under the New Deal, and the cold war.

If Mounk understood the remarkable contingency and relatively short life of this “nation of immigrants,” he might have hesitated before warning liberals not to “disregard fears about ineffective border controls or dismiss the degree of public anger about current levels of immigration.” Liberals ought to know this quite well, since they played a central role in militarizing the border and fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment in a futile crusade to placate the far right while also pleasing big business.

Yet Mounk persists, and calls for for intensified immigration enforcement on pragmatic grounds. He argues that “secure borders can help to win popular support for more generous immigration policies.” Precisely the opposite is true: in recent years, the US built roughly 650 miles of fencing along the southern border and increased the size of the Border Patrol from 4,100 agents in 1992 to more than 19,000 today. These paved the way not for more generous immigration policies, but for Donald Trump. Mounk contends that “a streamlined process for identifying and removing immigrants who pose a security threat will help to calm, rather than to fan, ethnic tensions.” Doing precisely that was the centerpiece of Obama’s immigration agenda. Obama’s program—which provided local police fingerprints to ICE—made the country’s criminal justice system the front door to its deportation pipeline. He deported massive numbers of immigrants convicted of no serious crime, and the system he built provided Trump with the infrastructure to facilitate his own crackdown. Mounk is blind to the fact that the American far right’s fanatical demands are often for maximalist positions that the liberal order has already delivered. Liberal complicity with border security and immigration enforcement have only galvanized the far right to demand more.

In The People vs. Democracy, Mounk distills social science research to (in the language of his website) “create a bold policy agenda capable of solving the biggest challenges of the coming decades.” In addition to “Domesticating Nationalism,” Mounk’s prescriptions include “Fixing the Economy” and “Renewing Civic Faith.” All three remedies for an ailing body politic follow from the same set of basic assumptions: the world is “increasingly complex” and policy-making requires “considerable technical expertise.” But the people are attracted to populist leaders who offer “glib and facile” solutions; after all, “Voters do not like to think that the world is complicated” and often the policies needed for liberalism and democracy to symbiotically flourish again are “far from popular.” The people, in other words, don’t know what’s best for them. Elites more often do, but their messaging and rhetoric fails them. Whence the seeming intractability of the crisis, and the need for a scholarly courtier.

Although Mounk invokes technocracy as a more nuanced approach to complexity, his task is to render the world simple and intelligible to elites who live increasingly rarified lives. From such a distance, what does the world look like? Reminiscent of the populism he dreads, there is a Manichean logic to Mounk’s text. The “defenders of liberal democracy” (that pesky “we”) have a clear enemy: the populists. It doesn’t much matter whether these are right or left in ideology (populism is so promiscuous): what unites them is their distaste for liberal rights, penchant for authoritarianism, and rhetorical tropes of the beleaguered people. Although he acknowledges distinct shades of the populist threat, and even alludes to the fact that reactionary populism has enjoyed a more rapid ascent than its left-wing counterpart, he would rather class Corbyn and Erdogan and Trump and Chávez together (they all “sing from the same songbook”) than go to the trouble enumerating the obvious differences among them.

On occasion, Mounk feels compelled to explain why his technocratic account is superior to the left’s. When he does so, he resorts to caricature and neglects to include much in the way of citations. He compares Trump and Jill Stein and, even more bizarrely, Steve Bannon and Naomi Klein. The left he describes is one that we find unrecognizable. “It is the left that chants, ‘No Trump, No Wall, no USA at all!’,” Mounk writes. Having never heard this chant we looked up the citation. It turned out to be from a YouTube video of what appear to be anarchist Black Bloc protesters, with fewer than 400 views, posted by what seems to be a right-wing account.

It is one of many examples in which Mounk shows himself to be an unreliable guide to post-Trump American political landscape. He accuses “many members of #TheResistance” of being “so hostile to the Democratic party [sic] that they do not see it as a priority to help the opposition win back Congress in 2018 or take the White House in 2020.” This is an attempted shot at the left that misfires twice. The “Resistance” refers to precisely those liberals who, like Mounk, are profoundly wedded to the Democratic Party. Furthermore he fails to understand that the broad support on the left for Bernie Sanders (who is unmentioned in the book) was historically notable precisely because it marked an unusual engagement with the Democratic Party among people who often supported third party candidacies or avoided electoral politics altogether.

The lack of serious engagement with leftist movements is symptomatic: for Mounk, the people only appear as a demonic or feckless collectivity. Despite his avowed commitment to democracy, and his perfunctory nod to “grassroots opposition groups” in his conclusion, there is no substantive discussion of protest or social movements in the book. Labor unions are absent from his account of postwar affluence as they are apparently unnecessary for the transition to a more equal capitalism; the black freedom struggle is only mentioned so as to be downplayed in the discussions of civil rights—save for quotations of contemporary politicians quoting civil rights heroes. This is a vision of management more than a vision of politics, and it is already being eaten alive by the half-wild beast it’s meant to tame.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,570
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: U.S. Politics

14 May 2018 18:40

Another chunk of red meat for his deplorables. Another decision with yuge international consequences that donnie placed into his ‘US politics’ basket. Lesseeee...’fire and fury’, nuking NK. Jerusalem embassy and capital, Mideast peace, not likely, Iran deal, practically gives Israel permission to attack Iran...Nobel Peace prize? For setting up a meeting with the other unhinged world leader. Hilarious.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/387468-juan-williams-trumps-dangerous-lies-on-iran%3famp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/959533/trump-usa-embassy-jerusalem-israel-gaza-palestine-turkey/amp

Trump lied? Shocking...
Last edited by Bustedknuckle on 14 May 2018 18:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,010
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

14 May 2018 18:50

Another example of trump-land vetting
The evangelical pastor delivering a blessing at Monday’s opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem is a “religious bigot” who is unworthy of such an honorary role, Utah Senate hopeful Mitt Romney wrote on Twitter Sunday night.

“Robert Jeffress says ‘you can’t be saved by being a Jew,’ and ‘Mormonism is a heresy from the pit of hell,’” Romney, who is Mormon, wrote on Twitter Sunday night. “He’s said the same about Islam. Such a religious bigot should not be giving the prayer that opens the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.”
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,010
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: U.S. Politics

14 May 2018 18:57

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/14/marco-rubio-slams-trump-reversal-on-chinese-company-zte.html

I guess a late night call from one of his billionaire buddies who would be hurt by ZTE going under. Could anything in trumplandia be more confusing or contradictory?
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,010
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

14 May 2018 19:37

Just lovely.

This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller's indictment.

"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier.

"The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"

"We're not," Dubelier responded.

"And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government," Dubelier continued.

"If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not."

The term "indict a ham sandwich" is believed to have originated from a 1985 report in the New York Daily News when New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler told the news publication that government prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-14/mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-even-exist-court-transcripts-say
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

14 May 2018 22:20

Shocked to see ZH obfuscate on behalf of Russia. Just so out of character for them.
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,261
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

14 May 2018 23:14

aphronesis wrote:In February, US Citizenship and Immigration Services deleted language from its mission statement that described the country as a “nation of immigrants.” It was yet another sign that a belief pervasive in the Trump White House—that arrivals from Latin America, Asia and Africa posed a threat to an American identity truly rooted in European culture—was spreading to other institutions of government. Last year, Trump invoked Blut-und-Boden nationalism before an audience in Warsaw. “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” Trump said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

European countries appear to have taken up Trump’s challenge with vigor. In Poland, the ruling Law and Justice Party has potentially made it a criminal offense to assert that ordinary Poles murdered their Jewish neighbors during the Holocaust. In Italy, the right-wing Northern League has dropped northern from its name, ditching its denigration of Southern Italians for an anti-immigrant demagoguery pitched to xenophobes up and down the peninsula. In Germany, where the far-right Alternative For Germany is now the largest opposition party, one leading public intellectual criticized Merkel’s refugee policy, on the grounds that “no society has the moral obligation to self-destruct.” In France, where the specter of the National Front still looms, another intellectual warns that “peoples, civilizations, religions—and especially when these religions are themselves civilizations, types of society, almost States—cannot and cannot even want to . . . blend into other peoples, other civilizations.”

All of these developments have spooked the liberal establishment, who grieve the loss of familiar moorings, and who have no clear way to steer the ship back to safe cold war harbors. How can one find a new way back to the securities of the old world? Yascha Mounk, a lecturer at Harvard who has emerged as a kind of expert on the vogueish “crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of populism” (he has also written for this magazine), has hit upon what he believes is a novel idea for achieving “a kind of society for which there is no clear precedent”—that is, a liberal democracy in a multiethnic country that was for a long time either monoethnic or subject to a racial hierarchy. In his new book, The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It, the executive director at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change’s “Renewing the Centre team” argues that a revitalized liberalism is the answer.

In Mounk’s account, “the views of the people are tending illiberal and the preferences of the elites are turning undemocratic,” and that as a result “liberalism and democracy are starting to clash,” leading to “the rise of illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy.” According to Mounk, the component parts of liberal democracy enjoyed a long century of symbiosis, but today they are rapidly devolving into mutual antagonism.

To save the system from cannibalistic self-destruction requires understanding the arc of its rise and fall. Unexpectedly for an avid defender of liberal democracy, Mounk offers a cynical account of the regime’s origins. For Mounk, liberal democracy is a compromise between elites and the masses. He uses a vignette of Prussian peasants getting duped into a fake exercise of popular sovereignty to show that the terms have always been starkly unequal: the many get the illusion of self-rule while the few “continued to get their way on the most important issues.” The architects of the first liberal republics—the US among them—constitutionally codified the limited nature of democracy.

Over the course of the nineteenth century, however, the franchise expanded to include the propertyless masses; over the course of the twentieth, more and more of the excluded were given the rights of citizenship. Among the industrialized powers, the expansion of democracy required “a contingent set of technological, economic, and cultural preconditions”: the domination of a limited number of mass media outlets; a rising standard of living (and, importantly, inter-generational upward mobility); and either ethnic homogeneity (in Europe) or racial hierarchy (in the US). Today these are threatened by social media, economic precarity, and increasing migration and diversity.

Mounk’s sociological realism should not be confused with critique. His treatise is inspired neither by anti-elite animus nor the radical promise of democracy. It is instead a view from above, or perhaps something like a system-eye view of itself, in which stability is an unquestioned good. Attempting to bring the reader alongside him, Mounk writes often of an unspecified “we” and “us,” evoking a collective liberal mind on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The People vs. Democracy is a map for elites who no longer recognize the world they created, and whose subjects are no longer duped by the myth of popular sovereignty. This is where Mounk enters, stage center-left, posing as a guide out of the present crisis.

When did liberalism go astray? Mounk’s assessment of the failings of Hillary Clinton and her class is that “politicians have found it increasingly difficult to sell the message that things are complicated.” Thus does the weakening grip of liberalism on the minds of the masses open the way for the demon of populism. According to Mounk, “populists are unwilling to admit that the real world might be complicated—that solutions might prove elusive even for people with good intentions.” As a result, “they need somebody to blame. And blame they do.” Liberals, by contrast, are, despite their failings, well-intentioned and gifted with the powers to diagnose problems and devise policy solutions. The tragedy is that they struggle to convey this truth clearly to the people, who have grown restless, disenchanted by claims to expertise, and enchanted by Manichean simplifications. What is to be done?

In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, Mounk summed up the case made at length in his book: that to fight the far-right, liberals should reclaim a more inclusive nationalism. Admirably swallowing his personal distaste, Mounk offers his solution as a concession: we are helpless before nationalism, and simply have to deal with it. Would-be critics must either embrace it or make one of two mistakes: “celebrate more narrow forms of collective identity, such as race or religion,” or “forgo the need for any form of collective identity.” With so many falsehoods setting fire to straw men, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Who are these people that argue for eschewing all collective identity? Even in its blandest form—“Stronger Together”—some invocation of the people seems to be an imperative in mass politics. And even though race and religion can indeed be pernicious grounds for group cohesion, what does he mean by arguing that they are more “narrow” than nationalism? An estimated 1.2 billion Catholics are alive today, compared to roughly 330 million Americans. In empirical terms, Mounk’s point is nonsensical.

Despite the appeal to pragmatism, Mounk’s political vision is utopian, his ideal polity a kind of liberal sublime. In a distant place far outside of history, virtuous trustees of public reason skillfully mobilize the best of nationalism while fending off its “dangerous excesses.” Entranced, Mounk sees in nationalism a muscular tool for legitimizing the political-economic order: “Nationalism is like a half-wild beast. As long as it remains under our control, it can be of tremendous use.” Who is the “beast,” and who is the “us” into which Mounk places the reader?

Mounk’s colorblind, Whiggish, “inclusive” nationalism is nothing new. As Aziz Rana has argued in these pages, it long served as an entirely conventional and cold war liberal form of identity politics. And it has always played handmaiden to the state’s policing functions, whether to discipline rebellious movements at home, or obliterate those deemed existential threats abroad. It’s telling that the two heroes of Mounk’s beloved “inclusive nationalism”—Obama and Macron—are exemplars on both counts. He cites Macron’s embrace of diversity in his campaign, but characteristically fails to note that once in office Macron decided to placate the far-right by cracking down on asylum seekers. This isn’t the sort of thing that concerns Mounk. As he sums up in his vacuous, marketing-speak appraisal of Macron: “Rhetoric matters.” The repetition-compulsion with which Mounk and company “discover” old ideas suggests that they suffer from a diurnal amnesia. They wake up with “new” proposals to persuade people that the liberal order is just, realize by bedtime that they won’t be listened to, and by morning come up with the same proposals again.

Which is also to say that this isn’t the first time that intellectuals have worried over the fate of national identity in a globalizing world. In the 1990s, neoconservatives exuded melancholy following the collapse of the Soviet Union: the country’s mission, forged in martial certitude, had evaporated, and a flat world, rampant consumerism and the end of history failed to take its place. As Corey Robin writes in The Reactionary Mind, people across the political spectrum—from liberals to the right —were thrilled by September 11th’s nationalist frisson: “Writers repeatedly welcomed the galvanizing moral electricity through the body politic. A pulsing energy of public resolve and civic commitment, which would restore trust in government . . . and bring about a culture of patriotism and connection. . . . With its shocking spectacle of fear and death, 9/11 offered a dead or dying culture the chance to live again.” But the energy of neoconservative idealism crumbled under the grind of permanent, asymmetrical and unconventional conflict, which was then seized upon by Trump, who has governed with a terrifying agenda to intensify state violence—whether at the border or abroad—with a naked appeal to national self-interest.

Mounk, however, seems to think that he can resuscitate liberal nationalism through elite calls for the mass, emotional labor of nation-loving. This isn’t desirable or plausible. Nationalism has never come out of sheer, voluntary enthusiasm. Remembering for a moment his realist impulses, Mounk argues that “citizens have built up loyalty to their political system because it kept the peace and swelled their pocketbooks, not because they hold a deep commitment to its most fundamental principles.” But he then goes on to insist that liberal elites can build a new national identity by way of forceful rhetoric, somehow transcending a class conflict in which they are belligerents. Mounk re-animates a familiar brand of liberal elitism masquerading as solidarity: “At a time when many minority groups are under attack, it is, of course, crucial to defend them against discrimination.” Not only are affluent white people the unmarked audience for this exhortation, in paternalistic fashion he assumes that beneficent elites, rather than the oppressed themselves, are the protagonists in the struggle to defend the oppressed.

Mounk pairs his woke noblesse oblige with a distorted picture of the present, in which “African Americans are better represented in business and government than ever in American history,” according to his op-ed. Better still: “the day on which neither race nor creed would undermine somebody’s claim to be a true American seemed considerably closer than it once had. Then came Donald Trump.” This may be technically correct, given the historical baselines of chattel slavery and Jim Crow. But Mounk has nothing to say about racialized mass incarceration (by 2015 there were more black men under some form of correctional control than enslaved in 1850), nor the decimation of black wealth in the wake of the financial crisis. Untroubled by these issues, Mounk spends pages analyzing overhyped controversies over campus speech and cultural appropriation, often in a manner so flat-footed that it is breathtaking: “Since dreadlocks were depicted as far back as Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, for example, a case could be made that African Americans are themselves engaging in a form of cultural appropriation when they are sporting this hairstyle.”

We will refrain from an exhaustive catalog of the book’s inaccuracies, but Mounk tellingly gets many of his few concrete references to American history wrong. He writes that “the end of segregation was brought about not by the will of the American people but rather by an institution that had the constitutional power to override it.” Mounk is apparently referring to cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled de jure school segregation unconstitutional. This version of history not only elides the role played by popular mobilization in shaping court decisions, but it also ignores legislative accomplishments like the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which unlike the Brown decision led to substantive and widespread school desegregation measures—and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, propelled forth by black activists enduring police violence in the South, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, passed in the wake of urban uprising and protest against ghettoization. Mounk’s endeavor to cast the unelected judiciary as an unrivaled civil rights hero requires him ignoring this history and much more—including the fact that the Supreme Court has in recent years gutted both the Voting Rights Act and school desegregation initiatives.

Mounk’s portrait of American immigration history offers similar platitudes with the same confidence. He writes that the United States “had thought of itself as a country of immigration since its founding” —a cliche that scholarship has debunked. For much of early American history, Americans conceived itself as a nation of settlers. It was only in the late 19th century, amidst the closing of the frontier, the rise of industrial capitalism and the influx of people from Italy and Russia, and from East Asia, that newcomers began to be viewed largely as immigrants (often negatively). Only in the mid-20th century did many whites began to reimagine the country as a “nation of immigrants” amidst the black civil rights struggle, the rising fortunes of so-called white ethnics under the New Deal, and the cold war.

If Mounk understood the remarkable contingency and relatively short life of this “nation of immigrants,” he might have hesitated before warning liberals not to “disregard fears about ineffective border controls or dismiss the degree of public anger about current levels of immigration.” Liberals ought to know this quite well, since they played a central role in militarizing the border and fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment in a futile crusade to placate the far right while also pleasing big business.

Yet Mounk persists, and calls for for intensified immigration enforcement on pragmatic grounds. He argues that “secure borders can help to win popular support for more generous immigration policies.” Precisely the opposite is true: in recent years, the US built roughly 650 miles of fencing along the southern border and increased the size of the Border Patrol from 4,100 agents in 1992 to more than 19,000 today. These paved the way not for more generous immigration policies, but for Donald Trump. Mounk contends that “a streamlined process for identifying and removing immigrants who pose a security threat will help to calm, rather than to fan, ethnic tensions.” Doing precisely that was the centerpiece of Obama’s immigration agenda. Obama’s program—which provided local police fingerprints to ICE—made the country’s criminal justice system the front door to its deportation pipeline. He deported massive numbers of immigrants convicted of no serious crime, and the system he built provided Trump with the infrastructure to facilitate his own crackdown. Mounk is blind to the fact that the American far right’s fanatical demands are often for maximalist positions that the liberal order has already delivered. Liberal complicity with border security and immigration enforcement have only galvanized the far right to demand more.

In The People vs. Democracy, Mounk distills social science research to (in the language of his website) “create a bold policy agenda capable of solving the biggest challenges of the coming decades.” In addition to “Domesticating Nationalism,” Mounk’s prescriptions include “Fixing the Economy” and “Renewing Civic Faith.” All three remedies for an ailing body politic follow from the same set of basic assumptions: the world is “increasingly complex” and policy-making requires “considerable technical expertise.” But the people are attracted to populist leaders who offer “glib and facile” solutions; after all, “Voters do not like to think that the world is complicated” and often the policies needed for liberalism and democracy to symbiotically flourish again are “far from popular.” The people, in other words, don’t know what’s best for them. Elites more often do, but their messaging and rhetoric fails them. Whence the seeming intractability of the crisis, and the need for a scholarly courtier.

Although Mounk invokes technocracy as a more nuanced approach to complexity, his task is to render the world simple and intelligible to elites who live increasingly rarified lives. From such a distance, what does the world look like? Reminiscent of the populism he dreads, there is a Manichean logic to Mounk’s text. The “defenders of liberal democracy” (that pesky “we”) have a clear enemy: the populists. It doesn’t much matter whether these are right or left in ideology (populism is so promiscuous): what unites them is their distaste for liberal rights, penchant for authoritarianism, and rhetorical tropes of the beleaguered people. Although he acknowledges distinct shades of the populist threat, and even alludes to the fact that reactionary populism has enjoyed a more rapid ascent than its left-wing counterpart, he would rather class Corbyn and Erdogan and Trump and Chávez together (they all “sing from the same songbook”) than go to the trouble enumerating the obvious differences among them.

On occasion, Mounk feels compelled to explain why his technocratic account is superior to the left’s. When he does so, he resorts to caricature and neglects to include much in the way of citations. He compares Trump and Jill Stein and, even more bizarrely, Steve Bannon and Naomi Klein. The left he describes is one that we find unrecognizable. “It is the left that chants, ‘No Trump, No Wall, no USA at all!’,” Mounk writes. Having never heard this chant we looked up the citation. It turned out to be from a YouTube video of what appear to be anarchist Black Bloc protesters, with fewer than 400 views, posted by what seems to be a right-wing account.

It is one of many examples in which Mounk shows himself to be an unreliable guide to post-Trump American political landscape. He accuses “many members of #TheResistance” of being “so hostile to the Democratic party [sic] that they do not see it as a priority to help the opposition win back Congress in 2018 or take the White House in 2020.” This is an attempted shot at the left that misfires twice. The “Resistance” refers to precisely those liberals who, like Mounk, are profoundly wedded to the Democratic Party. Furthermore he fails to understand that the broad support on the left for Bernie Sanders (who is unmentioned in the book) was historically notable precisely because it marked an unusual engagement with the Democratic Party among people who often supported third party candidacies or avoided electoral politics altogether.

The lack of serious engagement with leftist movements is symptomatic: for Mounk, the people only appear as a demonic or feckless collectivity. Despite his avowed commitment to democracy, and his perfunctory nod to “grassroots opposition groups” in his conclusion, there is no substantive discussion of protest or social movements in the book. Labor unions are absent from his account of postwar affluence as they are apparently unnecessary for the transition to a more equal capitalism; the black freedom struggle is only mentioned so as to be downplayed in the discussions of civil rights—save for quotations of contemporary politicians quoting civil rights heroes. This is a vision of management more than a vision of politics, and it is already being eaten alive by the half-wild beast it’s meant to tame.


Great read, thanks for posting.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,937
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

15 May 2018 04:21

Well, I agree somewhat with Mounk here:

Mounk’s assessment of the failings of Hillary Clinton and her class is that “politicians have found it increasingly difficult to sell the message that things are complicated.” Thus does the weakening grip of liberalism on the minds of the masses open the way for the demon of populism. According to Mounk, “populists are unwilling to admit that the real world might be complicated—that solutions might prove elusive even for people with good intentions.” As a result, “they need somebody to blame. And blame they do.” Liberals, by contrast, are, despite their failings, well-intentioned and gifted with the powers to diagnose problems and devise policy solutions. The tragedy is that they struggle to convey this truth clearly to the people, who have grown restless, disenchanted by claims to expertise, and enchanted by Manichean simplifications.


Trump’s basic message has always been “make America simple again”. His followers do think there are simple solutions to very complex problems. That doesn’t mean neoliberals have the answers, but the first step is recognizing the complexity of the issues, and at least they’ve gotten that far.

As often is the case, the left (myself included) is better at pointing out the problems than offering solutions. Mounk may not have the answers, but does his critic here do any better? Does s/he even address the problem beyond recounting all the flawed logic, historical inaccuracies, etc., of Mounk’s position? When an increasing proportion of our lives is ruled by technology that very few people really understand, how does democracy work? What decisions is it capable of making?
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,741
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

15 May 2018 05:35

Scott SoCal wrote:Just lovely.

This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller's indictment.

"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier.

"The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"

"We're not," Dubelier responded.

"And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government," Dubelier continued.

"If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not."

The term "indict a ham sandwich" is believed to have originated from a 1985 report in the New York Daily News when New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler told the news publication that government prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-14/mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-even-exist-court-transcripts-say


You miss really important s**t sometimes...I helped you out. Usually, Tyler Durden is more astute, but he and you really are out of your element, related to this topic.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,937
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

15 May 2018 07:24

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/14/emails-white-house-interfered-with-science-study-536950
Scott Pruitt’s EPA and the White House sought to block publication of a federal health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis, after one Trump administration aide warned it would cause a "public relations nightmare," newly disclosed emails reveal.

The intervention early this year — not previously disclosed — came as HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was preparing to publish its assessment of a class of toxic chemicals that has contaminated water supplies near military bases, chemical plants and other sites from New York to Michigan to West Virginia.

The study would show that the chemicals endanger human health at a far lower level than EPA has previously called safe, according to the emails.
...
The problem has already proven to be enormously costly for chemicals manufacturers. The 3M Co., which used them to make Scotchguard, paid more than $1.5 billion to settle lawsuits related to water contamination and personal injury claims.

But some of the biggest liabilities reside with the Defense Department, which used foam containing the chemicals in exercises at bases across the country. In a March report to Congress, the Defense Department listed 126 facilities where tests of nearby water supplies showed the substances exceeded the current safety guidelines.


Let them buy Perrier ...
"Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?"

“It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
User avatar Robert5091
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,454
Joined: 29 Mar 2016 08:56
Location: stockholm, sweden

Re: U.S. Politics

15 May 2018 12:51

The Kremlin today expressed its “deepest concern” at the killings, which the IDF claimed was carried out in self-defence. The White House today also blamed Palestine for the deaths, claiming Hamas had attacked the border.


I saw 2 guys being shot on TV..both were no where near the border fence..another reason to kill muslims, trump must be squealing like the pig he is. Nobel Peace Prize? Blame Palestine? Who moved the embassy and who declared Jerusalem a 'unified' capital? YGBSM.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/960001/palestine-israel-gaza-protest-us-embassy-jerusalem-russia-us-trump
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,010
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

15 May 2018 13:11

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:Just lovely.

This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller's indictment.

"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier.

"The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"

"We're not," Dubelier responded.

"And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government," Dubelier continued.

"If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not."

The term "indict a ham sandwich" is believed to have originated from a 1985 report in the New York Daily News when New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler told the news publication that government prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich."


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-14/mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-even-exist-court-transcripts-say


You miss really important s**t sometimes...I helped you out. Usually, Tyler Durden is more astute, but he and you really are out of your element, related to this topic.



The company was either organized at the time in question or it was not. It’s exceptionally easy to determine even in Russia. Mr Durden understands what’s happened here and thus the reportage.

More;

Two US lawyers for Concord stepped up in recent weeks to pick away at the prosecutors' approach. At first, the Concord attorneys took issue with the way Mueller's team had contacted them with a summons, then they demanded more details about the information prosecutors have in the case. Judges have not yet stepped in on those issues. Concord said in its filing Monday that it plans to ask the court to dismiss the charge. The company has also asked the federal judge to examine instructions Mueller's team gave to the grand jury that approved the indictment.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/concord-consulting-mueller-court-case-russia-election/index.html?sr=twCNN051418concord-consulting-mueller-court-case-russia-election0654PMVODtop


Given the lashing Mueller received last week (Judge Ellis) “He (Ellis) summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, “We said this is what the investigation was about. But we’re not going to be bound by it, and we weren’t really telling the truth in that May 17 letter [appointing a special counsel].” 

In other words the government is lying.

Ya bro, missing things can be problematic.
Last edited by Scott SoCal on 15 May 2018 13:32, edited 1 time in total.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re:

15 May 2018 13:15

Merckx index wrote:Well, I agree somewhat with Mounk here:

Mounk’s assessment of the failings of Hillary Clinton and her class is that “politicians have found it increasingly difficult to sell the message that things are complicated.” Thus does the weakening grip of liberalism on the minds of the masses open the way for the demon of populism. According to Mounk, “populists are unwilling to admit that the real world might be complicated—that solutions might prove elusive even for people with good intentions.” As a result, “they need somebody to blame. And blame they do.” Liberals, by contrast, are, despite their failings, well-intentioned and gifted with the powers to diagnose problems and devise policy solutions. The tragedy is that they struggle to convey this truth clearly to the people, who have grown restless, disenchanted by claims to expertise, and enchanted by Manichean simplifications.


Trump’s basic message has always been “make America simple again”. His followers do think there are simple solutions to very complex problems. That doesn’t mean neoliberals have the answers, but the first step is recognizing the complexity of the issues, and at least they’ve gotten that far.

As often is the case, the left (myself included) is better at pointing out the problems than offering solutions. Mounk may not have the answers, but does his critic here do any better? Does s/he even address the problem beyond recounting all the flawed logic, historical inaccuracies, etc., of Mounk’s position? When an increasing proportion of our lives is ruled by technology that very few people really understand, how does democracy work? What decisions is it capable of making?
Or that the complexity is the liberals trying to pull the wool over their eyes as this gem from Charlie "Diapers" Kirk illustrates.

Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11
Wait let me get this straight, people who can’t predict the weather 24 hours in advance are now telling us what global temperatures will be in 10 years?
Donald Trump: “If you go back to the Civil War, it was the Republicans who did the thing.”
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,261
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

15 May 2018 13:46

Merckx index wrote:Well, I agree somewhat with Mounk here:

Mounk’s assessment of the failings of Hillary Clinton and her class is that “politicians have found it increasingly difficult to sell the message that things are complicated.” Thus does the weakening grip of liberalism on the minds of the masses open the way for the demon of populism. According to Mounk, “populists are unwilling to admit that the real world might be complicated—that solutions might prove elusive even for people with good intentions.” As a result, “they need somebody to blame. And blame they do.” Liberals, by contrast, are, despite their failings, well-intentioned and gifted with the powers to diagnose problems and devise policy solutions. The tragedy is that they struggle to convey this truth clearly to the people, who have grown restless, disenchanted by claims to expertise, and enchanted by Manichean simplifications.


Trump’s basic message has always been “make America simple again”. His followers do think there are simple solutions to very complex problems. That doesn’t mean neoliberals have the answers, but the first step is recognizing the complexity of the issues, and at least they’ve gotten that far.

As often is the case, the left (myself included) is better at pointing out the problems than offering solutions. Mounk may not have the answers, but does his critic here do any better? Does s/he even address the problem beyond recounting all the flawed logic, historical inaccuracies, etc., of Mounk’s position? When an increasing proportion of our lives is ruled by technology that very few people really understand, how does democracy work? What decisions is it capable of making?


Not all complex problems require complex solutions. Like anything else... the complex issue is solved a bit at a time and bit solutions can be simple.

Problem is pols don’t want to solve complex problems. Immigration is a great example. The farm bill is another. General welfare is yet another. Public education, the list goes on.

The nano-second systems are set up necessarily with competiting interests then you get what we have.

Dems; we want new voters. Repubs; we want cheap labor. Immigration and all the issues that go along with a semi-open border will turn a relatively simple issue into a very complex one.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

15 May 2018 14:55

@merckx do you think getting clear on the shortcomings of soft/boutique/atari liberalism is not worthwhile.

alternatively, sure, we could argue that technology abets, among other thing a “deep state” as its material substrate or alternate infrastructure. but that kind of technocratic leaning went badly for Hillary who is ultimately a coarse thug.

as it really did for Obama’s accomplishments.

I think one set of reasons the left has become short on solutions is that: they lost their labor base through the policy crackdowns of the 70s/80s, they lost a steady or assumed base under the proliferation of identity politics which retained some, while driving others away and split the socio/cultural and working identities, through an increased appeal to an elitist professionalism zed base that also internalized individualist meritocracy of the neoliberal project, they moved rightward to accomodate the economic growth that would favor the professionalized class, they began settling for simple single issue fixes as a moral denial of the rightward shift, under the bullying, bellicose McCathesque years of Bush/Cheney they abandoned most remaining political demands and complex analyses in favor of more such quick fix panaceas like Obama’s health care act while leaving any honest assessments of the overall economic nomic reality to the side. The crash of 2008 did little to change this among older generations and increased the tendency to side with the safe bet of the two party candidate rather than think about what it would take to break apart the status quo bits at a time.
Last edited by aphronesis on 15 May 2018 15:13, edited 1 time in total.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,570
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bustedknuckle, Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests

Back to top